I'm not biased; I just know what's true!

“Confirmation Bias” explains why we choose the books we read, the people with whom we associate, the news sources we attend to. Our beliefs, our assumptions, our “biases” are central to our character, and self-worth is built upon the “confirmation” that what we are is good, is proper, is commendable, is TRUE. Naturally, we attend more to voices that agree with our biases, less to voices that question them. In A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies and Leadership, former FBI director James Comey writes:

Our brains have evolved to crave information consistent with what we already believe. We seek out and focus on facts and arguments that support our beliefs. More worrisome, when we are trapped in confirmation bias, we may not consciously perceive facts that challenge us, that are inconsistent with what we have already concluded. In a complicated, changing and integrated world, our confirmation bias makes us very difficult people. We simply can’t change our minds. (Kindle, p.104)

Well, “we simply can’t change our minds” is a bit much; we can and do change our minds on occasion. Many of us assumed the warming climate was a natural phenomenon that would reverse itself in nature’s own time. Presently, many of these many have “changed their minds” and now accept the phenomenon to be tied to human activity. What it will take for all of us to grasp that climate change can’t be fought without economic sacrifice is anybody’s guess; confirmation bias weighs heavily in our avoidance of news about potential climate change consequences.

In its very definition, even, lies the stubbornness of confirmation bias; the tendency is to agree that it exists in human psychological makeup; the illusion that it affects primarily others, though, is a sinister example of confirmation bias all on its own.  

I know of a few ways in which I’ve been forced to step outside of my own biases and face up to truths that made me change my mind. Familiarity gained by living on a reserve and in Europe, extended visits to Panama and Mexico made it necessary to discard biases about cultures I’d held on to up to then. Education, of course, has the power to overwhelm old biases with knowledge and training in reasoning and debating of issues: logically and amicably. And then there’s aging, reaching a plateau in life where being right—and being rewarded for being right—are no longer urgent.

Rapid change can be an incentive to lean on our biases and to seek their confirmation. I’m reminded of that old joke in which Ole and his friend are launching a boat, and Ole ends up with one foot on the dock and the other on a gunwale of a moving boat. “Yump, Ole, Yump!” yells the friend, and Ole replies, “How can I Yump? I got no place to stood!”

For creationists, the literal interpretation of Genesis is the ground on which they stand. For some, the Yump from this safe ground would mean certain drowning. There’s plenty to read that confirms this bias.

To have a place to stand—even if it’s a wrong place—is reassuring. The evil growing around the world that sees more and more people giving rein to a “me and mine first” bias has provided many with “a place to stand.” It’s a reasonable bias given that it feels like a survival tactic. That people seek out examples of individual achievement, of domination over underlings, of the rich, the “stars,” the powerful—and vicariously live the lives of those—doesn’t surprise. And dictators and oligarchs ensure that what they say and do—and what surviving news outlets reinforce—confirm this bias. It’s what we’re looking at in our southern neighbour.

Community life was the salvation of cultures prehistorically. How we shake our individualistic biases and embrace the implications of one, whole-world community is a conundrum we’ll never unravel unless we learn to abandon our biases in favour of better ones.

But as the character said to Granny who was certain she could swim the English Channel, “Good luck with that, Grandma.” 

Just hand me a pen!

 

Borrowed from free, internet images; definitely AI generated

“The hand that signed the paper

 felled a city ...”

This opening line of Welsh poet Dylan Thomas’ lament about war should be a wake-up call today. Written in 1938, the poem preceded World War II, but Thomas would live to see the most horrifying truth in his poem manifest when in 1945, President Harry Truman “signed the paper” that “felled” Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing somewhere between 200,000 and 300,000 civilians.

The exercise of power by "a few over many" takes on the colour of the human(s) who hold it in their hands. Would Jimmy Carter have signed off on the nuclear option to force the end of the war with Japan? Probably not. Would the current president be capable of signing it? Both had/have it in their power to sign papers that could “fell cities.”

But “felling cities” by “the few holding power over the many” scenario isn’t the only manifestation of the consequences. My church has mobilized behind the desperate need of the hungry of Gaza; many of “the many” have sacrificed in support of this cause, only to see the Prime Minister of Israel “sign a paper” to shut off humanitarian aid.

We say that “the pen is mightier than the sword;” heaven help us when the pen and the sword march together, when brutality and propaganda link arms.

Literally, many a city has been felled in Gaza and Ukraine by the abuse of power by the few.

The preservation of democratically elected governance is a must; the world, meanwhile, seems to have become enamoured with watching the exercise of unstoppable power, most probably under the delusion that that power will rub off on them. Persons with a social conscience—whether Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or none of these—who believe that its efficacious to include both neighbours and strangers in efforts to make a better world, must act. Power easily becomes ruthless and abusive if unchecked; it doesn’t cater for public welfare but uses public assets to bolster its hold on privilege and power.

But what can I do? So many are asking. In a functioning and fair democracy, you use your vote, of course, and campaign for the candidate with integrity and a sense of public service. Even elected governance takes the shape and colour of the people chosen. 

Vote for people, not parties.

Dictatorships, Oligarchies, Kingdoms have historically been dismantled by bloody revolutions. Best case is a democracy that recognizes the signs of approaching demagoguery and nips it in the bud, as we say. Failing that, a strike would be better than armed revolution; if many lay down their tools and refuse to work until change happens, bloodless revolution has a chance. 

A boss who isn’t obeyed ceases to be boss.

The rallying of the many is difficult; rallying of the many, many is almost always beholden to extraordinary leadership.

And where will such leadership be found?

Pass the Ball!

 

MUSINGS ON WOMEN’S PROFESSIONAL SOCCER FROM SOMEONE WITH ABSOLUTELY NO CREDENTIALS ON THE SUBJECT

According to recent CBC news reports, women’s soccer will have a professional league by 2025. I guess that men’s professional sport as it now exists in basketball, hockey, baseball and soccer will be model for the new entity. Basically, that means that franchises will be owned (like your local Subway) and will operate inside a league structure that regulates team operations. The franchises will employ, trade, waiver and terminate players on a pseudo-free-market basis as regards pay and “working conditions.” Revenue will be primarily based on public fanaticism’s (fan’s) willingness to pay to watch the soccer competitions among franchises, and to purchase heavily-marked-up fan merchandise. Citizens of much, of little or no interest in women’s soccer will contribute tax dollars in order to enable construction of venues for the sport.

The key ingredient determining the success of the envisioned league is whether enough people will pay to watch women compete on the soccer field. Gender equality is certainly at play here and it seems obvious that there exists in Canada a cultural conviction that combat-style sports is men’s work, like truck driving and bridge engineering used to be.

Accepting for a moment that sports has a valuable role to play in a culture—supported by pointing out fitness, eye/hand coordination, harmless diversions for youth, etc. factors—it still follows that sitting on a hard seat in a stadium watching other people stay fit doesn’t necessarily provide the same benefits. Still, it’s a free country; there’s no law that says we can’t throw up a fence around a soccer field and offer people the right to come in and watch us “do sports” for a price. Heaven knows that staging an exhibition of taking off one’s clothes for pay, no less, has put more than a few coeds through college.

I know it exists, but I’d need to have explained how, for instance, a Canadian Women’s National Soccer Team winning gold in the 2020 Tokyo Olympics turns into a national achievement, a source of national pride when comparatively few of us armchair TV watchers had even the slightest hand in making that possible. Some would argue that such achievements and the presence of professional sports in a culture is encouragement to amateur sports, hence to sportsmanship and physical activity in the population. If that’s true, then I bow to the women who are elated over the possibility of living a life that is, well, soccer.

I watched a high-level women’s hockey game once and found it at least as entertaining as a tangle between the Canadiens and the Leafs. In fact, it resembled NHL hockey closely except with less aggressive contact. (The group hug around the scorer after a goal seems to have become a team-sport staple wherever such games are played.)

Someone (perhaps I) once said that in this age of the instant, the convenient, the technical and mechanical advances, life is becoming a quest to conquer boredom. Whether this involves endlessly watching sports, copious reading, traveling, crafts and hobbies, playing chess in sidewalk cafes, a new avocation, whatever, is a matter of individual preference. For one of these strategies, professional women’s soccer offers an expanded choice, and after 2025, a career option for remarkably athletic girls. 

 

Goodbye, Brain

 Anxiety about danger relating to Artificial Intelligence is everywhere. Meanwhile competition among greedy internet companies rushing headlong toward the abyss could make a fence post weep.

One of my big concerns is that the creativity and resilience of human consciousness will diminish as advancing technology reduces the need for creative thinking. A kind of reverse evolution. 

I had occasion recently to ask a bright person at the till in a restaurant to divide a bill in two because I and my friend had shared a meal. I think it was for $48.64 or similar. He couldn't find his calculator, and when I said "It's $24.32," he looked at me as if I'd pulled a rabbit out of my navel. "Oh yah," he said, "you're a teacher."

DUH!

By way of illustration of how AI says to us, "Don't think, just ask!" I pretended I had a College level assignment to do, and decided to use Copilot to help me out. The AI response needed reformatting, but tell me if the temptation to plagiarize AI wouldn't be strong, especially if you were late. And imagine that your teacher didn't realize it wasn't your work and gave you an A. Well, I hope it makes my point. 

I told Copilot AI to ...

Write a polemic on: "Successful cultures have learned that in serving humanity well, some things must be done socialistically, and others capitalistically. It's not an either/or."

Ten seconds later, Copilot replied ... I was impressed

"Alright, George, let's dive into this."

Successful cultures have indeed recognized that a balanced approach, incorporating both socialist and capitalist principles, is essential for serving humanity effectively. This isn't a matter of choosing one     over the other, rather understanding that each system has its strengths and weaknesses, and leveraging them accordingly.

Capitalism, with its emphasis on competition, innovation, and individual enterprise, has driven techno-logical advancements and economic growth. It rewards hard work, creativity, and risk-taking, fostering an environment where new ideas can flourish. However, unchecked capitalism can lead to significant in-equalities, with wealth and power concentrated in the hands of a few, often at the expense of the many.

On the other hand, socialism emphasizes collective welfare, equality, and social justice. It seeks to en-sure that everyone has access to basic necessities such as healthcare, education, and housing. By redis-tributing wealth and resources, socialism aims to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor, creating a more equitable society. However, excessive socialism can stifle individual initiative and innovation,  leading to inefficiencies and a lack of economic dynamism.

The most successful cultures have learned to strike a balance between these two systems. They recog-nize that certain sectors, such as healthcare, education, and social security, are best managed with a so-cialist approach to ensure universal access and equity. At the same time, they understand that other       areas, like technology, entrepreneurship, and consumer goods, thrive under capitalist principles, driving innovation and economic growth.

This hybrid approach allows societies to harness the benefits of both systems while mitigating their respective drawbacks. It fosters a dynamic, innovative economy that also prioritizes social welfare and     equity. By doing so, these cultures serve humanity well, ensuring that progress and prosperity are shared more broadly and equitably.

In conclusion, the dichotomy between socialism and capitalism is a false one. The most successful cul-tures have learned that in serving humanity well, some things must be done socialistically, and others   capitalistically. It's not an either/or situation, but a matter of finding the right balance to create a just,     prosperous, and dynamic society.

DUH!